How many methods of ‘doing science’ are there? I don’t know exactly. But there’s certainly more than a single method called THE ‘scientific method.’ This infographic makes the mistake of singularisation. It speaks of ‘THE scientific method’ like a 3rd grade teacher to ‘students.’

And of course the infographic makes the typical IDist analogy error of human-made to non-human made things, e.g. bicycle to flagellum. But they have limited Right-Wing, Conservative-funded intellectual resources, so one shouldn’t blame them, right?

Likewise, the infographic tries to reify ‘Intelligent Design’ by intentionally forgetting (except in the first case) to add the term ‘Theory’. Yada, yada…repeat

Gregory: While indeed there are many methods that are scientific, the framework of observation, hypothesis, inference and prediction leading to empirical testing . . . and provisional confirmation of good (i.e. empirically reliable) explanatory constructs, is well known and traces to for instance newton in Opticks, Query 31, 1704. Do you care to say that Newton was ignorant of basic scientific methods and can safely be dismissed? The DI infographic uses this instantly familiar school science basic method outline based on inductive logic. This framework is patently reasonable, and that is uses it is no good ground on which to dismiss it. KF

PS: You seem to forget you have some serious civility and respect matters to resolve before participating in threads I own.

Any difference? Plural. Singular. Not complicated for adults to understand. IDists, however, seem to be intellectually challenged for a variety of reasons, Expelled Syndrome among them.

Luskin et al.’s book uses a Grade 3-level infographic.

Nice call Kantian Naturalist #3!

Argue about this just because you are a fanatical IDist and not based on logic or wisdom, KF. I’ll make no more responses on this Grade 3-level infographic. It is just that silly, while typically claiming to be profound.

I was once told that Hilary Putnam’s contribution to The Philosophy of Karl Popper (ed. Schlipp) is a good criticism of the idea of “the scientific method”. I have not confirmed this myself, nor have I read Feyerabend’s Against Method.

A few days ago I stumbled across an article about how the idea of “the scientific method” became canonical for public school education. If you’re interested I can try and replicate my search and find it again.

What I like about this infographic is that it makes really clear where the problem with intelligent design lies.

Here’s the argument:

(1) We observe that all As are caused by Bs.
(2) Cs are similar to As in relevant respects.
(3) Therefore, it is highly probable that Cs are also caused by Bs.

But this is invalid, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

The correct conclusion from (1) and (2) is

(3′) Therefore, we should inquire into whether are Ds which are similar to Bs in the relevant respect, and which stand to Cs as Bs stand to As.

In other words, the conclusion of the argument is a hypothesis to be tested, not a hypothesis that has been tested. There is a crucially important distinction that is elided by the invalidity of the argument.

Additionally, both premises (1) and (2) are false. Two false premises and an invalid argument — that’s the theory of intelligent design.

“A few days ago I stumbled across an article about how the idea of “the scientific method” became canonical for public school education. If you’re interested I can try and replicate my search and find it again.” – Kantian Naturalist

Yes, definitely interested. In STS, SoS and PoS this is standard step-one stuff. I’ve read some Putnam, but American philosophy is not my specialty. Would much like to read about what you highlight here. Thanks in advance for what you might find. – Gr.

(1) We observe that all A are caused by B and never by M.
(2) A is not caused by M because M cannot provide for complex specified information.
(3) C is simular to A but has superior complex specified information
(4) There are only two known causes B and M.
(5) (superior) B is the only option as a cause for C

Gregory, is it very difficult for you to have an abstract concept of intelligence (mind, consciousness)? Do you have to confine your understanding of intelligence to humans? Why not consider other possibilities? How about aliens?

(1) We observe that all A are caused by B and never by M.
(2) A is not caused by M because M cannot provide for complex specified information.
(3) C is simular to A but has superior complex specified information
(4) There are only two known causes B and M.
(5) (superior) B is the only option as a cause for C.

I have a problem with Box’s (2), because it is phrased as an a priori claim, “A is not caused by M because M cannot provide for complex specified information”. That “cannot” is very strong! How do we know that it is just impossible for material causes to generate complex, specified information? Surely the sane position is to say that it is logically possible, just very unlikely?

So now it looks as follows:

(1) Everything belonging to kind K is observed to be caused by A-causes.
(2) Everything belonging to kind L is relevantly similar to kind K.
(3) Therefore, it is highly unlikely that kind L is brought about by B-causes,
(4), But, there are only two kinds of causes, A-causes and B-causes.
(5) Therefore, it is highly likely that kind L is brought about A-causes.

That looks fine — but notice that the conclusion I’ve reached here is not

(5′) Therefore, kind K was, in fact brought about by A-causes

The conclusion of the argument is not the establishment of a fact, but the establishment of the probability of a fact. And those are not the same thing. In order to establish the fact, one would have to perform the inquiry to see if whether or not the highly probable fact did, in fact, take place. (Since unlikely things do happen, after all.)

Now, one could save oneself the headache and heartache of empirical inquiry by replacing (3) with the much stronger claim,

(3′) It is impossible that kind L is brought about by B-causes.

Then we have a nice, logically valid, and entirely a priori argument:

(3′) It is impossible that kind L is brought about by B-causes.
(4) But, there are only two kinds of causes, A-causes and B-causes.
(5) Therefore, kind L must have been brought about by A-causes.

Of course, the a priori claim (3′) cannot be grounded in observation, and so much for the assertion that intelligent design is a scientific theory.

No, if you want to maintain that intelligent design is scientific, you’re struck with (3), and that means that the conclusion has to be a hypothesis to be tested, and not one that has survived testing.

Ran across this assertion, (regarding Infographic) from critic on another ID blog. Anyone have any thoughts? >

“”FATAL PROBLEMS WITH THESE CLAIMS:

1) “Complex Specified Information” (CSI) is not accepted by the scientific community as having any meaningful existence.

2) The hypothesis that “Natural structures will be found that are irreducibly complex” (IC) is not falsifiable — as you can never prove the negative that some such structure won’t eventually be found. (The Russel’s Teapot problem.)

3) “Genetic knockout experiments” do not test whether a structure is IC, any more than removal of a random stone from an arch will prove whether it could have been constructed by sequentially adding (and/or removing) pieces.

4) It is not explicated HOW “an intelligent agent” explains (let alone is the best explanation for) CSI/IC (even if it had actually been demonstrated that they actually have meaningful existence), it is simply ASSERTED that it explains them. Could somebody please “explain” (in non-supernatural terms) the existence of such an “intelligent agent” at the time of the Cambrian?

I would conclude that none of this proves anything other than that the authors of DID have a very limited understanding of science””

F/N: On the basic/generic methods/approach of science. Newton, Opticks, Query 31, 1704 — and cf. his four rules:

As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur . . .

This covers a lot of ground already, with an emphasis on empirical reliability of inductive general claims, and their provisionlality. All I would add is that when we deal with things we cannot directly investigate, we look at traces, emissions etc and compare to things that reliably produce substantially the same effect on “like causes like.”

In that context the attempt to pretend that instances of substantially the same phenomenon: digital, coded string data structures used in algorithms are mere dubious analogies impress me only for the drearily predictable resort to selective hyperskepticism. Functionally specific, complex organisation and associated info are real, observable, measurable and evident to the willing onlooker. Capital case in point, protein synthesis.

Let those who are willing to say Newton did not understand science and its pivotal methods, now explain their views.

By canons of inductive scientific reasoning that are rooted in the basic patterns of thought Newton and many others have used, the design inference is blatantly scientific.

Just nod your 3rd grade level head, KF and agree. The truth is too strong against you and IDism.

An ostracised American man who lives on a little island (in the Pacific) is not fit to speak about ‘civil’ as you feign to do and will *never* publish a credible paper on FSCO/I that the academic community will accept or embrace.

Your threats are empty, GEM. If you wish to banish me, then do it, for timaeus’ sake, entirely. If you hope for reality to cleanse your Expelled Syndrome disease, try for it. Otherwise, there does not seem any other hope than for you to become an Alinskyite-IDist stubbornly to the end against your own will.

The infographic in this thread is absurd for reasons already identified above. Pleading otherwise is just IDist grovelling.

i.e., the “analogy error” made by Steve Fuller, whom Gregory has praised fulsomely here, time and again, and who, according to Gregory, is the person we at UD should all be listening to.

It’s funny; Gregory berates us all for not listening to Fuller, but then, when we accept Fuller’s central theological position relevant to ID — i.e., univocal predication — Gregory tells us we are all wrong.

And no, I’m not trying to “drive a wedge” between Gregory and Fuller; I’m merely asking Gregory to listen to Fuller when he talks sense. If Gregory would actually take Fuller seriously, he would have a much more positive view of ID than he does.

At least timaeus could admit the ‘analogy error’ and point it out when it too often is repeated by his fellow IDists. But he is an Expelled Syndrome fanatic IDist, so, of course, he won’t do this.

timaeus’ ‘us’ and ‘we’ is telling of his IDism, even if he still lies to himself that he is not an ‘IDist.’ It is too obvious to anyone who pays attention. Gollum, Gollum.

It is true that Steve Fuller has identified the ‘analogy error’ that IDT makes. Likewise, Fuller has claimed that IDism deserves to be heard academically, for which he has been chastisted. This is much more courageous than anyone among the IDM’s leadership, i.e. DI Fellows because Fuller properly identifies that IDT is a science, philosophy, theology/worldview’ conversation and cannot be conducted as a ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ theory. timaeus has his head stuck in the sand on this and needs to be burped to realise his error, which he will *never* in public admit.

Thus, if IDists, like timaeus had actually listened to Fuller, meaning the LEADERS, and thus changed their song, they’d have self-exploded their ‘SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION’ talk long ago.

‘Berate’ is a term the Expelled Syndrome victim ‘timaeus’ uses because he’s run out of excuses. He won’t post a thread at UD because he has nothing original or important to say. He won’t extend himself because he can’t actually publish a paper in a credible journal about IDT and then tell about it here at UD – because he’s stuck in his hidden cave. It’s sad, but it’s not far away from YECism – timaeus’ current level of scholarly credibility.

As for taking Fuller seriously, timaeus is so far removed from reality that people ought to check their clocks. timaeus is still living in the 70s & 80s, when he was in university. Fuller has moved on from that time, even though he is 3 yrs younger than boastful timaeus, and is now addressing topics relevant to today…which is why he isn’t and won’t become an IDist of the USAmerican (government shut-down) variety – it’s a dead-end street.

[Timaeus] won’t post a thread at UD because he has nothing original or important to say. He won’t extend himself because he can’t actually publish a paper in a credible journal about IDT and then tell about it here at UD – because he’s stuck in his hidden cave.

Anyone who rationally, calmly, effectively and sustainably rejects IDT is automatically called a TROLL! This is IDist fanaticism. You’re welcome to taste Expelled Syndrome as KF, timaeus, Joe and other IDists have. Just don’t pretend it is healthy.

One simply cannot, because there is no way, deal in ‘civility’ with a freak-of-nature like Kairos Focus-GEM. UD should expell him; he gives even right-wing conservative ‘timaeus’ a bad name. No logic will reach KF-gem. And no serious publication will ever host his FSCO/I fanaticism, even while he insists on ‘billions’ of examples!

The infographic in this thread is obviously childs play, as KN has shown. But die-hard IDists like KF-GEM seem unable to possibly realise this by taking a broader context into account.

Who presents the more defensible statement; the one who says, for purportedly obvious reasons, that a forest fire is only an analogy to a burning oil slick on the surface of the sea, or, the one who claims that for all their differences, from a purely material perspective they are quite the same phenomenon – requiring a fuel source, an oxidizing agent, a heat source, and the rapid oxidation of fuel (i.e. combustion) as their sufficient and necessary material conditions?

Gregory, what, in your opinion, turns on there being more than one scientific method as regards ID. That is, let us imagine there is more than one scientific method, and then let us imagine there is not; what does this change as regards ID?

And Gregory, as regards fanaticism, there appears to be only one person here so fanatically devoted to their viewpoint that they are out of control and unable to respond in a reasonable manner to objections to their viewpoint (faith). And that appears to be you.

Who presents the more defensible statement; the one who says, for purportedly obvious reasons, that a forest fire is only an analogy to a burning oil slick on the surface of the sea, or, the one who claims that for all their differences, from a purely material perspective they are quite the same phenomenon – requiring a fuel source, an oxidizing agent, a heat source, and the rapid oxidation of fuel (i.e. combustion) as their sufficient and necessary material conditions?

That’s not the right analogy for the situation the design theorist finds herself in, because both the fire and burning slick are already well-understood examples of the same basic process.

The design theorist is in the situation of, say, Benjamin Franklin, who had to show that lightning is a form of electricity. That is, he had two phenomena — lightning and electricity — and the burden was on him to show that his hypothesis was correct. He did that by testing it. Likewise, the design theorist needs to show that both are instances of the same basic thing. That can’t be asserted — it has to be shown.

So the design theorist should not say,

the utterances of human beings display functional, complex information, and those are caused by intelligence, and the genetic code displays functional, complex information, therefore the genetic code is (probably) caused by intelligence.

What she should say is

the utterances of human beings display functional, complex information, and those are caused by intelligence, and the genetic code displays functional, complex information, therefore we should figure out how test the hypothesis that the genetic code is caused by intelligence.

Until there’s a way to put that hypothesis to the test, design theory is just speculation — it’s not even a serious alternative to other explanations of biological phenomena, “Darwinian” or otherwise. But thus far, all the ‘tests’ I’ve seen put forth are just different ways of defending the intelligibility of the hypothesis itself, and defending the intelligibility of the hypothesis is not a test of the hypothesis.

KN – you appear to be conflating the hypothesis with the evidence for the hypothesis. Or, at best, you appear to be conflating two different hypotheses, and then demanding that the evidence for one also support the other.

KN: The text of this post is a string of alphabetic characters, using certain conventional glyphs. 1011010 is similar code using binary characters, which can be instantiated with hi/lo voltages in a shift register, or as prongs of different height on a key blank, or as holes/not holes in a computer code paper tape. In D/RNA, when we see AUG . . . expressed as a contingent sequence of monomers which manifests a prong height based four state per character string data structure code, one used in a known algorithmic process of making proteins under numerical control of the mRNA tape in the ribosome, we are looking at instantiation not analogy. The resort to pleading analogy and demanding acceptance that analogies may fail so we must assume this one is failed, is not only weak but patently fallacious. Absent the a priori commitment that one cannot accept the reality of object code functioning in an algorithmic execution machine for this case — i.e. this is selective hyperskepticism, the matter would be a “no brainer.” It is evident to all save those straining to find an objection, that DNA expresses digital — discrete state — code, and that this code is used in the algorithmic process of making proteins, using mRNA, a string data structure with start, next, next . . . stop instructions encoded as three-letter clusters, codons according to known, deciphered related code dialects. I suggest you rethink the matter. KF

Grade 3-level ideas and those who hold them actually believe they are above serious thinkers who have worked and taught and in some case published on these topics.

djockovic is an easy example. He/she *doubts* that there are multiple ‘scientific methods’. Asks me to provide a lecture.

Go do some reading, learn, elevate yourself! You’ll find that, even if you are an Abrahamic believer, IDism is not a necessary ideology for you to swallow. In fact, it is actually harmful, if you do your homework to discover why. It is not nearly ‘cutting edge’ other than the political-cultural-social Movement, mainly in the USA, to seduce mostly evangelicals to reject (again) evolutionary theories. It’s so Americanly boring as to be simply repetitive with a slight informationist Philip Johnson/Charles Thaxton adaptation.

The infographic shown in this thread is childs play. You’ve got two professors telling you this. But because many readers at UD have succumbed to Expelled Syndrome, you simply refuse to accept reality about it.

Gregory, where did I doubt there were multiple scientific methods? I didn’t – and the point was much more straightforward than that. Here it is again: what serious problems for ID turn on there being more than one? That is, what difference does it make as regards the merits, or otherwise, of ID if there are 1, 10, 100 or 1000000 scientific methods?

kairosfocus – one thing I’d change in the infographic is the part in the last section where you say you attribute the Rosetta Stone and machines etc. to an “intentional mind”. “Intentional” is, imo, not the best choice here because of what that term means in regards to the (philosophy of) mind. Thus is not clear whether what you mean here is an intentional (ie, meant to do it intentionally) mind, or a mind with the property of intentionality (aboutness). Better, I think, to avoid that word and simply keep using a term like “intelligent agent”.

Gregory, no,I disagree. I disagree firstly because it’s not clear it actually pretends that at all. That is, it simply uses the commonly accepted phrase “scientific method” and then even goes on to say “eg”… That is, it says “eg” and not “ie”, thus straightforwardly stating that what it is talking about (observation etc) is an example of the scientific method and not necessarily the be all and end all of it. Thus, on this first point, it seems you are largely manufacturing a problem where there is none in reality.
I also disagree, however, because even if we were to grant you your basic point, it makes not a blind bit of difference to anything to do with ID or the infographic here whether there are 1 or 101 scientific methods, and so to muddy the waters by labouring this point would not only be quite irrelevant but would also add unnecessary complexities to what is supposed to be a nice, neat, explanatory tool for ID. (This lack of difference (irrelevance), fwiw, is why you are quite unable, despite two requests, to come up with anything that turns on this point you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about.)

And so, to conclude, no, I don’t think the infographic suffers in any way by retaining the straightforward, and widely used throughout science education, terminology.

KN – you appear to be conflating the hypothesis with the evidence for the hypothesis. Or, at best, you appear to be conflating two different hypotheses, and then demanding that the evidence for one also support the other.

I don’t think I am, because I don’t see how there’s any “evidence for” the hypothesis.

I see how there are observations which inspire the abductive leap that leads to the hypothesis, but those observations don’t count as evidence for the hypothesis because they do not occur in the course of subjecting the hypothesis itself to empirical confirmation (or refutation).

. . . we are looking at instantiation not analogy. The resort to pleading analogy and demanding acceptance that analogies may fail so we must assume this one is failed, is not only weak but patently fallacious. Absent the a priori commitment that one cannot accept the reality of object code functioning in an algorithmic execution machine for this case — i.e. this is selective hyperskepticism, the matter would be a “no brainer.”

What to you is instantiation of a shared property looks to me much like reification of a metaphor. There are ways in which it is useful to think of genetic information as being like machine code, and ways in which it is not useful. (Much like there are ways in which is useful to think of atoms as being like tiny solar systems, or gases as collections of tiny billiard balls.)

I’ll think further about how exactly to articulate this criticism, since I do take seriously the allegation of selective hyperskepticism.

I don’t think there’s any evidence for the hypothesis that complex, specified information in biochemical systems originates from the creative activity of an intelligent being.

I think it’s an interesting hypothesis, and there certainly are observations that motivate the abductive leap. I can easily someone saying

It is surprising that biochemical systems display complex, specified information. But if biochemical systems originated from the creative activity of an intelligent being, then displaying complex, specified information would be a matter of course.

and that’s perfectly all right, by my lights. What isn’t all right is to conflate (i) the observations that inspire the leap itself with (ii) the observations that would need to be made in order to test the hypothesis. Thus far, all the “evidence” I’ve seen presented falls into (i). If I’m missing something, what?

KN – but the hypothesis that “complex, specified information in biochemical systems originates from the creative activity of an intelligent being” is not really the main hypothesis of ID. That hypothesis, as you call it, is actually the conclusion of an argument which is given in evidence for the mean ID hypothesis – that a designer is at work in the universe. And by conflating the argument/evidence for the main hypothesis with the main hypothesis itself – or by portraying that argument/evidence as the hypothesis to be tested, you are generating the circle you subsequently complain of. So of course the argument/evidence is not an argument/evidence for itself – it was never meant to be.

KN – but the hypothesis that “complex, specified information in biochemical systems originates from the creative activity of an intelligent being” is not really the main hypothesis of ID. That hypothesis, as you call it, is actually the conclusion of an argument which is given in evidence for the mean ID hypothesis – that a designer is at work in the universe. And by conflating the argument/evidence for the main hypothesis with the main hypothesis itself – or by portraying that argument/evidence as the hypothesis to be tested, you are generating the circle you subsequently complain of. So of course the argument/evidence is not an argument/evidence for itself – it was never meant to be.

One of us is very confused, and it might be me. What you’re calling the main hypothesis I thought was a consequence, and the other way around. I thought that the whole ID approach was to say,

It is surprising that biochemical systems display complex, specified information. But if biochemical systems originated from the creative activity of an intelligent being, then displaying complex, specified information would be a matter of course. Therefore, it is reasonable to posit the existence of a designer at work in the universe.

That said, my criticism isn’t that there’s any circularity going on here. (I did raise that point against Box earlier, but that’s only if one of the premises is construed as an a priori claim.) My criticism is that the hypothesis hasn’t been tested and therefore should not be granted the epistemic privilege we normally bestow upon scientific theories.

To say that it hasn’t been tested is to say that it doesn’t move beyond the abductive stage of inquiry into the deductive and inductive stages. And all the evidence that’s been presented thus far is just the observations that inspire the abductive leap in the first place, and not observations that would confirm or disconfirm the leap.

I’m struggling to say very clearly what I’m trying to say. But I do think there’s a point in there. And I think it has to do with what might be called the overarching ID hypothesis (something like: certain features of the universe are best explained by a designing intelligence), and the evidence for that (something like, this system here is best explained by a designing intelligence). Now, there are obviously a whole load of places where such an argument might fail, but it’s important to tease out the positions occupied by the various aspects of the ID argument and ensure that any criticisms are directed at those claims as they feature in the overall ID framework. I suspect that, but am not able to state very clearly exactly how, your argument is requiring certain parts of the ID argument to do more work that they really need, or are employed, to do.

djockovic, I’d say that neither of your hypotheses are what I’d call a hypothesis.

I’d say that that the theory of ID is “certain features of the universe are best explained by a designing intelligence)” just as the theory Darwinian evolution is that “the distribution of features of organisms and their ability to survive in their habitat is best explained by descent with modification of all living things from a universal common ancestor and natural selection of those traits best suited for survival in the current environment”.

In order to gain support for these theories, especially if one is seen as alternative to the other, hypotheses have to be derived that make differential predictions: what we will see if A is true that we would not see if B is true.

That would be the classic empirical scientific method.

The difficulty for ID is making a prediction other than “I don’t think the other hypothesis would predict this”.

To be testable in classic empirical terms, it has to predict data better than the alternative, i.e. produce a model with a better fit.

The only ID hypothesis that I’ve seen that started down this road was front-loading, which was interesting.

All other ID inferences boil down to “the alternative model doesn’t have a good enough fit”.

Okay, I’ve had a think, and let’s try this. Your concern is that ID proponents have not been able even to propose some method of testing whether the type of systems we find are actually designed, let alone producing evidence that these systems pass these tests in an ID favourable manner. That is, your complaint is that ID is still at the stage of simply making an abductive argument for that possibility? Is that a reasonable assessment of where you stand on this one point?

djockovic, why are you being contrarian on a very simple and clear point? Has IDism clouded your mind?

There are many scientific methods. Fact. The infographic could EASILY recognise this, but it doesn’t.

What you call a “commonly accepted phrase” is actually an error shown by studies in history and philosophy of science. You’d know this if you had studied the relevant fields, which obviously you haven’t.

My point stands: the infographic is wrong to pretend (linguistically) that there is ONLY ONE ‘scientific method.’

Whether “the infographic suffers in any way” is an aside. It is simply wrong from the start. But hyper-IDists (is djockovic an IDist?) surely don’t want to admit any errors by IDM leaders.

Your concern is that ID proponents have not been able even to propose some method of testing whether the type of systems we find are actually designed, let alone producing evidence that these systems pass these tests in an ID favourable manner. That is, your complaint is that ID is still at the stage of simply making an abductive argument for that possibility? Is that a reasonable assessment of where you stand on this one point?

Yes, pretty much, but I wouldn’t put it that strongly. I wouldn’t say that “ID proponents have not been able even to propose some method of testing whether the type of systems we find are actually designed”. I mean, “not been able even to propose” is a very demanding allegation!

I would say that ID proponents have not yet shown that the ID hypothesis is actually confirmed by evidence, and for that reason, “ID is still at the stage of simply making an abductive argument for that possibility”.

Elizabeth – any difficulty for ID proponents trying to testably distinguish their theory from Darwinism is simply the flip side of an identical problem for Darwinists trying to testably distinguish their theory from ID. Thus if the ID proponents can’t did it, then neither than the Darwinists. And this, I think , is one of the main beefs ID proponents have with Darwinism – that Darwinists have simply poured their a priori metaphysical commitments into their theory and then offered their theory as evidence for the truth of their a priori metaphysical commitments. The ID theorists’ point, or one of them, being, hang on a minute, the situation we actually find (CSI, IC etc) actually supports an ID account inasmuch as the best/only explanation we currently have for how stuff of that type could arise is intelligence rather than undirected natural processes.

Okay, but that would put the ID theorists (at least) one step ahead of the Darwinists who have simply ruled that there was no intelligence involved by a centuries old methodological pronouncement. Their argument fails even to have reached the abductive stage! No?

Okay, but that would put the ID theorists (at least) one step ahead of the Darwinists who have simply ruled that there was no intelligence involved by a centuries old methodological pronouncement. Their argument fails even to have reached the abductive stage! No?

As with ID, it all depends on how narrowly or broadly one construes the Darwinian hypothesis, and what explanatory burdens it is called upon to perform.

plus genetic drift, geographical isolation, etc. — then, I would say that the hypothesis was abductively arrived at by Darwin himself, had observable consequences deduced from it that would not have been deduced from competing hypotheses, and had those consequences confirmed by observation. So I think that the Darwinian hypothesis is in very good shape, epistemologically speaking.

On the other hand, if “the Darwinian hypothesis” is construed broadly, and conflated with ‘metaphysical naturalism’ or ‘materialism’, as the claim that

(2) There are no teleological processes or intentional actions causally responsible for the basic laws of physics, values of physical variables, or coarse-grained history of cosmic development.

that is where the line (to the extent that there is one) between scientific theorizing and metaphysical speculation gets crossed. So I certainly agree with most ID proponents that, insofar as certain popularizers of ‘Darwinism’ tend to conflate their metaphysics with their science, and promote (2) as being just as well-confirmed and empirically warranted as (1), they are being intellectually dishonest.

And is that not where ID, then, currently, and perfectly legitimately, sits? That is, if Darwinists want to make those claims – and they do – then they better have some means of testing them, and when a test is supplied, ID performs better and is thus the best current explanation.

Gregory, I see you have no point and so are now simply opening your mouth and letting any old thing come out. Are you not supposed to be a champion of rational thought? Lol – to use the parlance of our times.

The way the scientific method is dealt with here is the same way it is dealt with in thousands of educational environments. There is absolutely no point in labouring this point in this particular point in this particular infographic. Nothing hangs on it. That’s why despite your claims you have been unable to come up with anything that would make this change necessary. Thus it’s not a mistake and more a common simplification that is perfectly adequate for the task at hand. Nothing more to it than that.

Claiming an Uppercase ‘Intelligent Agent’ or ‘Intelligent Mind’ is a religious or worldview act. It is not a ‘strictly [natural] scientific’ claim. Get this through your thick heads!

This should be easy to see and understand.

“recourse to an intelligent agent. You. Fact.”

But not an Uppercase (RESPECT!!!!) Intelligent Agent.

You IDists are laughably pitiably loveable morons to your Thaxton-Johnson Americanical brainless ideology. IDism dies sweetly because of your lack of education. But what remains rises because you (and I mean you and your fundamentalist kin mung) rise by having the spirit to explore what is possible for humanity.

It will go further and higher than anything IDism/IDT could ever imagine in the minds of DI leaders (and thus post-IDism), leaders of everyone (neo-creationist) IDist-leaning here, of the IDM, but it will nevertheless go. And you little IDists plagued with Expelled Syndrome cannot stop it.

Yeah, it say “the scientific method” because that’s what the collection of techniques used in scientific inquiry is called. Go look it up if you want. And if you still object and insist this is a kindergarten fantasy then you take your complaint to, eg, MIT (http://video.mit.edu/watch/dis.....ilot-8073/). As things stand you are singling out ID proponents for something that is common practice throughout the entire scientific community.

As for the rest of your wild rant, your stupid, well wide of the mark accusations, and your personal insults, ask yourself this: why are you so upset that you are unable to act in a reasonable manner and simply discuss the issue like a normal human being rather than a raving lunatic.

They used the phrase “the scientific method” because that’s what it’s called, duh! And if you don’t like it, take it up with MIT. And while you;re at it, take up the issue of the phrase “the law of the land” which likewise appears to be singular but refers to a collection of laws. Maybe you should get yourself back to third grade english class.

On one substantive point, Gregory is right — among philosophers of science, it’s widely held that there is no single thing as the scientific method.

Though I don’t work in philosophy of science or sociology of science, my impression is that the idea of there being a single, solitary scientific method was part of the positivist (and Popperian) attack on metaphysics and on ‘pseudo-science’. With the demise of that philosophical program in the 1960s and 1970s, the idea of the scientific method went with it. But by then the idea was deeply entrenched in generations of science educators.

Nobody except Gregory ever made the claim there was a single scientific method. The point here is that, however many of them there are, they are collected under the heading “the scientific method” in the same way that the laws of the land are collected under the heading “the law of the land”. And to expect an infographic on a different subject to belabour this (irrelevant to anything being discussed) point is simple lunacy. If you don’t like it, take it up with MIT and then get back to us.

That’s not the right analogy for the situation the design theorist finds herself in, because both the fire and burning slick are already well-understood examples of the same basic process.

You avoided giving an answer to the question, and did so by appealing to the false assumption that the phenomenon in question is not well understood. In any case, through the work of many researchers (Crick, Watson, Nirenberg, Matthaei, Hoagland, Zamecnik, etc) there is virtually no mystery left in the general operation of protein synthesis. Biologists do not struggle to understand how a polypeptide comes to be ordered and assembled in the cell. A claim is being made that the translation of information during protein synthesis is coherently modeled in a semiotic framework, with readily-identifiable material conditions. It is further claimed that this model is exemplified in any form of translation, but is otherwise entirely unique among all other physical conditions.

Likewise, the design theorist needs to show that both are instances of the same basic thing. That can’t be asserted — it has to be shown

If you were to claim that what we call “fire” requires three material conditions (the presence of a fuel, an oxidizing agent, and heat source) along with the identifying process of combustion, all you can do to make your case is to break it down into a series of coherent observations and demonstrate the process. After doing so, you ultimately rest your claim on the universal observation that no one has ever demonstrated it otherwise. Can I then legitimately claim that something else causes it too, or that one or more of the conditions is unnecessary, or that something else is the case, and then rest my objection by putting you in the position of proving me wrong?

I suppose the pertinent question to ask is what you consider necessary “to be shown” and how does that differ from breaking down the issue into key observations and demonstrating the process? If I should say that the arrangement of nucleotides in DNA inputs form (order, constraint among alternatives) into the assembly of a polypeptide, but it is the protein aaRS that determines which amino acids will be presented at the binding site – is that sufficient, given that it is universally recognized to be true? The semiotic framework claims that a set of arbitrary local relationships are necessarily instantiated into the system, and that it simply cannot function without them. Researchers such as Marshal Nirenberg and others have demonstrated the existence of these relationships through experiment, leading to our original elucidation of the genetic code. In other words, their experiments were specifically designed to demonstrate these relationships, and did just exactly that. Does this establish that these relationships ‘have been shown’ to exist?

Until there’s a way to put that hypothesis to the test, design theory is just speculation

The primary claim made by the semiotic argument is that protein synthesis is demonstrably semiotic, and as such, will require a mechanism capable of establishing a semiotic state. That claim quite naturally leads to two questions. The first is ‘what constitutes a semiotic state?’ This question is coherently answered within the argument itself. The second question is ‘what is capable of establishing a semiotic state?’, but this is a follow-on question which is literally pointless if one does not first agree to the primary claim – which includes virtually all ID critics.

So again, I ask here; how would one test the claim that protein synthesis is semiotic if not by breaking the issue down to its key determining elements and demonstrating the process, eventually resting the case on there being no valid rebuttal where one is certainly possible. Specifically, no one has shown that the statements of material fact are false, nor has anyone shown that the conclusion does not follow directly from those facts.

I have been very lenient. I suggested strongly above not giving the troll what he craves, attention. Please respect that.

And, Gregory, as of now if you do not apologise for what you have done starting with above [and show that you mean it by shifting tone dramatically], further posts in this thread from you will be removed.

CSI cannot be calculated without an a priori estimate of the probability of the observed under a non-design hypothesis.

Therefore you cannot conclude design from a positive CSI test, because your CSI calculation included your a priori estimate of the probability of non-design.

In other words, CSI is circular.

And yet, in order to try to dismiss the reality of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, EL has had to use a machine based on it [a designed machine] and has generated text strings that manifest it.

In short, she is self referentially incoherent.

She also forgets that the reality of something is not to be confused with what one does operationally to measure it.

For instance, length exists as a primitive concept, a necessary one for us to operate in our world. But to measure it, we are forced to use an instance, a standard unit of the same then compare.

The circularity is removed once we see the underlying reality on which the operations of measurement exist.

The same holds for mass, temperature, amount of substance, luminous intensity, current, time, angle, solid angle.

(That list should tell us something.)

Now, as for measuring FSCO/I and how this is allegedly circular and throws the matter into doubt, this is silly.

We are able to establish multiple methods of measuring information carrying capacity, indeed in Shannon’s own paper he not only discusses on the statistics of text strings, but he also directly estimates information capacity from number of accessible states of a decade wheel or the like. That is, equivalent number of yes/no structured questions to specify state is a valid metric of info-carrying capacity. Where, such is open to inspection or in principle open to such. I hardly need to say that in this case we are not calculating probabilities. And as a practitioner of digital electronics, I think EL needs to reckon with the fact that this is the most common approach in practical work. Indeed, document size in bytes is based on this.

Going beyond, function is an observable, something works or it does not, like my Linux partition went down the other day, forcing me to go through a headache — not yet over — to replace it. The most likely culprit is that some bits were corrupted. That is, we see islands of function in action. (I have often suggested the exercise of setting up an empty Word document then using a bit of software able to inspect it . You will be amazed at the apparent gibberish and repetitive patterns in it. At random, knock out one character. Then try to open as a Word doc. No go. Functional specificity is very real and observable.)

So, we have empirical ways of addressing the reality of FSCO/I and estimating the informational content.

All of this has been pointed out to EL et al umpteen times, and it has just as repeatedly been ignored, distorted and dismissed.

This is yet another manifestation of the ideological agenda that FSCO/I is such a threat to, so it must be dismissed. Just as, Meyer must be dismissed so anything to deride or dismiss him is acceptable. [Notice how the objectors cannot answer the point that classification of living systems cannot be on hypothetical organisms, but must be on actually observed populations, living or fossil.]

Just as, we see conformation bias and pretzel twisting used to make the most grotesque and slanderous conspiracy narratives and false accusations seem plausible.

Materialist irrationality, irresponsibility, disrespect and hostility are important, and potentially — in the living memory past, actually and with horrific consequences — dangerous and destructive.

KF

PS: I will bet that, regardless of correction, we will see all of these fallacies again and again, repeated parrot style as a mantra by the mindless, and as a beguiling rhetorical device by those who do or should know better.

UB: A man confronted with evidence and reasoning against his will is of the same opinion still. We need to highlight that in order to resist the inference that the only known source of symbolic codes, algorithms using same and execution machinery from consideration, objectors are reduced to arguing that the genetic code is not just that — a code. KF

KN: Have you seen anyone anywhere arguing that there is a one size fits all technically detailed sci method? Are you prepared to argue that the school level summary of observe, hypothesise, infer and predict, empirically test, draw conclusions — embedded in the standard lab write-up format used by students in primary, secondary and tertiary levels for generations — is not a workable basic working summary for learning and practising science as process? If so, kindly inform us of your alternative and its justification and use in praxis. It seems to me this is all on red herrings led away to straw men the better to pummel away at them. The fact is, as what it seeks to do, give a basic layman summary and explanation with link for more details, the infographic is quite reasonable and well founded. I further find it interesting that above we do not find a discussion from your side about the far more momentous routine and toxically loaded agenda driven distortion of the design school of thought and the design inference. KF

PS: I think some of these objectors need to focus on the fact that the author act5ually uses “e.g.” to qualify the school level summary he gives. That strongly suggests to me he is very familiar with the wider issues on sci methods.

F/N: I just noticed a summary objection from Oct 1 has not been addressed on all points:

_________

>> “”FATAL PROBLEMS WITH THESE CLAIMS:

1) “Complex Specified Information” (CSI) is not accepted by the scientific community as having any meaningful existence.>>

a –> Naked appeal to the authority of schools of thought opposed. Also manages to instantiate the reality it tries to dismiss, by posting a coded text string that is functionally specific. Of course, the example is also designed.

>>2) The hypothesis that “Natural structures will be found that are irreducibly complex” (IC) is not falsifiable — as you can never prove the negative that some such structure won’t eventually be found. (The Russel’s Teapot problem.)>>

b –> The reality of IC structures is abundantly manifest in our world. The material issue is that there are cases in biology, e.g. the flagellum. Which per Minnich’s work has been shown such.

>>3) “Genetic knockout experiments” do not test whether a structure is IC, any more than removal of a random stone from an arch will prove whether it could have been constructed by sequentially adding (and/or removing) pieces.>>

c –> Improper analogy, an arch is constructed bit by bit to achieve a whole that is then functional all at once. A Darwinian pathway to an IC structure would have to be functional each step of the way and win in competition for reproductive success, but if all components must be present and properly matched and arranged, then it will not work. And co-opting of other parts and coupling them together — with matching and proper organisation — by chance strains credulity. Notice the Menuge C1 – 5 challenge that is routinely dodged:

For a working [bacterial] flagellum to be built by exaptation, the five following conditions would all have to be met:

C1: Availability. Among the parts available for recruitment to form the flagellum, there would need to be ones capable of performing the highly specialized tasks of paddle, rotor, and motor, even though all of these items serve some other function or no function.

C2: Synchronization. The availability of these parts would have to be synchronized so that at some point, either individually or in combination, they are all available at the same time.

C3: Localization. The selected parts must all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed.

C4: Coordination. The parts must be coordinated in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a flagellum are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant.

C5: Interface compatibility. The parts must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if a paddle, rotor, and motor are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly.

d –> What knockout experiments routinely show is that for certain biosystems, knock out any core part, function ceases, restore and function returns. That certainly is evidence of IC.

>>4) It is not explicated HOW “an intelligent agent” explains (let alone is the best explanation for) CSI/IC (even if it had actually been demonstrated that they actually have meaningful existence), it is simply ASSERTED that it explains them.>>

e –> Strawman. What is asserted is that FSCO/I is shown to exist, and that in all observed cases the cause is design. Where, design as cause, is on observation habitually associated with intelligence.

f –> The inference of science and inductive logic is to design as best causal explanation warranted per observations, the onward discussion of what or who may be a designer often goes beyond science.

>>Could somebody please “explain” (in non-supernatural terms) the existence of such an “intelligent agent” at the time of the Cambrian?>>

g –> Red herring and strawman that tries to reverse the import of the evidence and logic. The evidence is the increment in FSCO/I required to account for the dozens of body plans suddenly appearing, where the only empirically warranted causal source of FSCO/I is deaign.

h –> So, in fact the evidence points to design as cause, and then raises the onward point that design is in turn evidence of designers.

>>I would conclude that none of this proves anything other than that the authors of DID have a very limited understanding of science”” >>

i –> This was here you began, not where you concluded. Plainly, if someone disagrees with the a priori materialist school of thought, you conflate disagreement with ignorance.

KF: The formula Dembski gives in Specification: the pattern that signifies intelligence includes a parameter representing the probability of the observed pattern under the “relevant chance hypothesis”, including, specifically, Darwinian and other material processes.

Therefore you have to estimate the probability of the pattern under Darwinian and other material processes before you can infer intelligence.

Kairosfocus – here’s a very short and sweat argument for ID that, imo, moves it from an abductive argument to something more like a proof, and also has the advantage of using premises which are more strongly accepted the more strongly one is likely to be a critic of ID or any kind of what might be called “supernaturalism”.

The universe passes the Turing test – or rather, it passes the design engineer version of it. Thus, the universe (or whatever produces the stuff we see) just is intelligent, and just is a designer. There being no more to these things (especially from the perspective of objectors to ID) than being able to produce such-and-such outcomes.

F/N: EL continues the silly that’s circular argument. She evidently refuses to recognise that how one measures something is separate from how it exists and how one knows it exists. Indeed, she manages to again instantiate what she would dismiss. As to Dembski’s math metric model, the point is that he addresses a standard abstract definition of information content as can be seen from extracting logs. Once we have identifiable info content in a system, by a reasonable means the matter is adequately addressed. As has been pointed out to her but ignored as usual for inconvenient facts and logic, any real world relevant inputs into the information content of DNA etc are reflected in the statistical patterns in DNA, i.e. if functional DNA in a reasonable cross section from the domains of life materially varies from a flat random balance of 25% each GCAT, that is captured in a reasonable sample, and leads to a net reduction in carrying capacity, however not by much, we know the chaining chemistry does not block any following any and that tRNA uses a standard CCA coupler to load AAs based on the codon. EL evidently refuses to admit that information metrics routinely work on information measured through state contingency and statistics, and is operating on the if one can get away with it it must be okay crude pragmatic principle. Game over. KF

That’s it: for cause of insistent enabling of slander I am saying the equivalent of please leave my living room until you show yourself civil. Please do not allow slanderers and their enablers to get away with it. KF

DJ: The first level of induction on observation is to causal process across observed causes. That is the scientific inference on tested, reliable signs. The onward inference from design as credible cause to designer as properly habitually associated therewith, is a distinct step. One in which inductive evidence of designs leads to this being grounds to argue cogently that design is evidence of designer, on common sense and experience. Design is empirical fact, and its characteristics are testable. Let us not be distracted by secondary ideologically loaded debates. KF

EL – you miss the point. If Darwinian Evolution makes testable predictions that can distinguish it from ID, the we have the exact same number of testable predictions that can distinguish ID from darwinian evolution – there being no way to distinguish A from B that is not also a way to distinguish B from A. And if the testable predictions don’t distinguish between A and B, then B can claim them as B-predictions every bit as much as A can claim them as A-predictions. Thus, as things stand, both theories are either in exactly the same boat or in no boat at all. They are not, and cannot be, as you need them to be, in different boats – unless you have some way of distinguishing that you’re not telling us about and are adamant does not (yet) exist.

KF: The formula Dembski gives in Specification: the pattern that signifies intelligence includes a parameter representing the probability of the observed pattern under the “relevant chance hypothesis”, including, specifically, Darwinian and other material processes.

Therefore you have to estimate the probability of the pattern under Darwinian and other material processes before you can infer intelligence.

Therefore it is circular.

I concur. And I haven’t seen anyone attempt to calculate this. If I’m wrong I’d love to have an example pointed out.

That’s it: for cause of insistent enabling of slander I am saying the equivalent of please leave my living room until you show yourself civil. Please do not allow slanderers and their enablers to get away with it. KF

Well, it’s not your sitting room though. It’s an online blog/forum which the owners have, rightfully, decided to open up to everyone . . . except those who have been banned of course.

You may find some of what happens on Dr Liddle’s own forum to be objectionable but to censor her posts on UD is a cowardly move. In my opinion. Especially since you’ve been given full right to post and rebut at TSZ. Her behaviour at UD has been civil and measured. If you’re going to judge her based on what other people have written on another site then will you do the same for ALL UD contributors? I can think of some pretty awful things Joe has written on his blog but you never sought to limit his use of UD based on that.

You may find some of what happens on Dr Liddle’s own forum to be objectionable but to censor her posts on UD is a cowardly move. In my opinion. Especially since you’ve been given full right to post and rebut at TSZ. Her behaviour at UD has been civil and measured. If you’re going to judge her based on what other people have written on another site then will you do the same for ALL UD contributors? I can think of some pretty awful things Joe has written on his blog but you never sought to limit his use of UD based on that.

Jerad: Slander is not free speech. It is defamation. Hosting slander is not an exercise in free speech, it is enabling of defamation. And, until there is a reasonable addressing of the resort to defamation, I am not going to pretend that all is sweetness and light. And no, I have no intention to get into a wrestling match in a fever swamp with its denizens. Defamation is not free speech, and in this case defamation goes as far as to improperly state that people are enemies of humanity — bigotry and false accusation laced hate speech in the context of a grotesque conspiracy narrative — taken as if it were fact without a peep of protest. I will not pretend that it is business as usual while that is on the table. (And do you see why I have pointed out to you your own implied support, J?) KF

PS: You clearly are unfamiliar with information theory or the practice of working with informational entities. DNA is a string data structure that has carrying capacity 2 bits per monomer or base. That is each position holds one of four states. It is complex and specified in relevant cases, and that specificity can be seen from the deep isolation of islands of function in the AA sequence space. On evidence — reviewed in DD BTW, we are looking at 1 in 10^60 – 70 or so of the space. And if it turns out that there is some redundancy int eh code used — not the physics and chemistry which allows free sequencing — that redundancy would reduce info capacity somewhat. The effective reduction is not great, if it were DNA would not work well as an info store. Dembski’s metric can be used directly,as the WAC’s illustrate on a case that was originally raised as a challenge. By making a log reduction and a reasonable threshold level, we can see that for our solar system, number of functionally specific bits less 500 bits is a good heuristic model for a threshold of enough complexity that blind chance and necessity is not a reasonable explanation. All the dismissive talking points in the world are unable to explain away the sampling challenge where the 10^57 atoms of our solar system, working for its lifespan would not be able to sample more than about one straw to a haystack 1,000 light years across,as thick as our galaxy at its central bulge. That sampling challenge overwhelms any notion that blind processes can get FSCO/I.

Jerad, as a further note, kindly observe that I am not forbidding or blocking EL from saying anything. The BSU president just did that on the taxpayer’s dollar to a professor who dared to speak about the limits of science, I have done no such thing. Just, that — after she has ignored or brushed aside multiple pleas to do better and has sought on more than one occasion to add insult to injury — she is not going to do so in threads I own, unless she is willing to make amends for hosting false, malicious and hateful declarations (some targetting me others the general design theory movement) and pretending that they are protected as free speech. And you had better believe that I will continue to document the exposure of the false accusations, e.g. here.. KF

F/N: I think we should ponder the following, from a blog in NZ, even in cases where legal sanctions are not forcibly applied under penalty:

_____________

>> . . . defamatory speech is insidious, causes harm, hurts; intuitively it just feels wrong to say that one is morally justified in spreading harmful falsehoods about a person and is not required to account for the wrongs done, because of their right to free speech.

After discussions with Matt about this I have decided that I prefer the following argument:

1] Freedom of Expression exists to allow people to freely express their opinions and impart information without fear of legal penalty.

2] Defamation is expression imparted to another that lowers the standing of a person in the eyes of their peers and is not true and is not honest opinion which is genuinely held [–> that is one knows or SHOULD know and do better].(I am ignoring the third defence, privilege).

3] A person who expresses defamation is not engaging in Freedom of Expression as where there is no truth or honest opinion then a person is neither attempting to inform another or attempting to express their opinion.

4] The basis for this is that to attempt to inform someone is to attempt to increase that person’s repertoire of true beliefs’ and to impart an opinion is to express what one honestly believes to be the case.

5] Therefore, the freedom that the right to Freedom of Expression protects is all speech that is true or honestly held to be true by the speaker.

That is much better.

Defamatory speech is not free speech therefore legal sanctions against it are entirely appropriate in both legal and moral senses.

Context:
Two blogs have recently been found to have published defamation of me, the nature of which was described as “extremely serious” by a Court of Law. The above demonstrates why I feel I was perfectly justified in seeking the removal of the defamatory material, one by Court Order, one by private request. John Stuart Mill, the UN Charter, Milton, Common Law, to point to a few, have agreed for centuries that defining Freedom of Speech to be all speech that is not Defamation is just in all mediums. Defamatory speech being restricted or punished by law, offline or online, poses no threat to anyone. >>
____________

When one hosts or promotes or enables falsehood that is damaging, sowing enmity — by way of incitement — and demeaning through false and blatantly ill founded conspiracy narratives and accusations such as I have exposed here, one is involved in that which has no moral justification and which one cannot responsibly or honestly express.

Jerad: Slander is not free speech. It is defamation. Hosting slander is not an exercise in free speech, it is enabling of defamation. And, until there is a reasonable addressing of the resort to defamation, I am not going to pretend that all is sweetness and light. And no, I have no intention to get into a wrestling match in a fever swamp with its denizens. Defamation is not free speech, and in this case defamation goes as far as to improperly state that people are enemies of humanity — bigotry and false accusation laced hate speech in the context of a grotesque conspiracy narrative — taken as if it were fact without a peep of protest. I will not pretend that it is business as usual while that is on the table. (And do you see why I have pointed out to you your own implied support, J?) KF

On this forum I have been accused of being brain dead, an ideologue, a victim and lots of other accolades. None of which are true and most of which are detrimental to my reputation. And did you protest? Did you correct the characterisations? Not very much if at all.

Not only are you casting aspersions on someone on UD because of perceived slights (by you) by others on another site entirely but you are actually censoring postings by the person you are blaming who did not say the things you find objectionable.

So, who is stifling free speech? Who is trying to control the discussion? Who is refusing to engage their critics in an open and free dialogue?

You clearly are unfamiliar with information theory or the practice of working with informational entities. DNA is a string data structure that has carrying capacity 2 bits per monomer or base. That is each position holds one of four states. It is complex and specified in relevant cases, and that specificity can be seen from the deep isolation of islands of function in the AA sequence space. On evidence — reviewed in DD BTW, we are looking at 1 in 10^60 – 70 or so of the space. And if it turns out that there is some redundancy int eh code used — not the physics and chemistry which allows free sequencing — that redundancy would reduce info capacity somewhat. The effective reduction is not great, if it were DNA would not work well as an info store. Dembski’s metric can be used directly,as the WAC’s illustrate on a case that was originally raised as a challenge. By making a log reduction and a reasonable threshold level, we can see that for our solar system, number of functionally specific bits less 500 bits is a good heuristic model for a threshold of enough complexity that blind chance and necessity is not a reasonable explanation. All the dismissive talking points in the world are unable to explain away the sampling challenge where the 10^57 atoms of our solar system, working for its lifespan would not be able to sample more than about one straw to a haystack 1,000 light years across,as thick as our galaxy at its central bulge. That sampling challenge overwhelms any notion that blind processes can get

I’ll happily compete in a mathematical challenge with you any day. Your bluff and bluster don’t intimidate me. ?he truth is: the mathematical and the biological communities don’t support your interpretation and no matter how much you play the Expelled Syndrome card it still doesn’t make you right.

F/N for Jerad: If I’m not mistaken, Joe was temporally banned here at UD at an earlier date, as was BA77.

I have no idea. Strangely, the UD management is reluctant to divulge its machinations. Especially when it comes to policing its sympathisers.

It is true that Joe has been very absent from UD and from his own blog for a couple of weeks. I hope that is not an indication that he has fallen on some bad times. I wish him no ill.

Jerad, as a further note, kindly observe that I am not forbidding or blocking EL from saying anything. The BSU president just did that on the taxpayer’s dollar to a professor who dared to speak about the limits of science, I have done no such thing. Just, that — after she has ignored or brushed aside multiple pleas to do better and has sought on more than one occasion to add insult to injury — she is not going to do so in threads I own, unless she is willing to make amends for hosting false, malicious and hateful declarations (some targetting me others the general design theory movement) and pretending that they are protected as free speech. And you had better believe that I will continue to document the exposure of the false accusations, e.g. here.. KF

Oh gosh no. You just completely wiped out one of Dr Liddle’s comments and replaced it with one of yours.

Two blogs have recently been found to have published defamation of me, the nature of which was described as “extremely serious” by a Court of Law. The above demonstrates why I feel I was perfectly justified in seeking the removal of the defamatory material, one by Court Order, one by private request. John Stuart Mill, the UN Charter, Milton, Common Law, to point to a few, have agreed for centuries that defining Freedom of Speech to be all speech that is not Defamation is just in all mediums. Defamatory speech being restricted or punished by law, offline or online, poses no threat to anyone. >>

Have you really gone through the legal channels you elucidate? And what did the court say?

AGAIN, I have been defamed and made the object of derision many times at UD. My motives and my intelligence has been called into question many times. I do not find it necessary to take the commenters of UD to court for that. I think I can deal with the criticism myself.

Similarly unresponsive. Defamation is not free speech, especially the sort of hate speech we are describing. Until that is dealt with, there is no basis for civil discussion. Business as usual defamation as usual, pretence that such is free expression as usual are over. KF

Jerad, foolish, drunken or angry insults are not defamation, though they should be restrained. (Already, this is turnabout false immoral equivalency accusation.) Constructing grotesque conspiracy narratives — evidently taken at face value without a peep of protest by TSZ’s denizens as has been archived — culminating in incitement by labelling us as enemies of humanity is. And, the issue is serious long before it reaches the court room over censorship, career busting, discrimination or God forbid some looney taking the incitement as a license to commit violence; have you forgotten the madman who went to the FRC with Chick fil A sandwiches and a gun, intent on mass murder? I suggest you re-read 100 above to begin to understand that there is no right to say anything you please anywhere you please, especially if you belong to favoured groups. There is such a line as that of making damaging, false assertions that a prudent person would have known were without adequate grounds and were harmful and demeaning. No one has a right to cross that line. Similarly, violation of privacy is a serious matter — and I say that as someone whose family has been subjected to outing attempts connected to implied threats. Remember, there is evidence on the table that on gross ill-founded conspiracy narratives, people are being deemed “enemies of humanity,” and there are attempts to pretend this is mere free speech. Not on the bloody, awful history of that accusation. A sobering line has been crossed and enabling behaviour is not good enough. KF.

F/N: BTW, false accusation of censorship IS defamatory, calculated to improperly damage reputation. Let me remind you Jerad of what I pointed out at 96 which you are recklessly ignoring in a rush to do harm, because of the notion that you and others have a right to defame under the excuse that such is free expression:

kindly observe that I am not forbidding or blocking EL from saying anything. The BSU president just did that on the taxpayer’s dollar to a professor who dared to speak about the limits of science, I have done no such thing. Just, that — after she has ignored or brushed aside multiple pleas to do better and has sought on more than one occasion to add insult to injury — she is not going to do so in threads I own, unless she is willing to make amends for hosting false, malicious and hateful declarations (some targetting me others the general design theory movement) and pretending that they are protected as free speech. And you had better believe that I will continue to document the exposure of the false accusations

Similarly unresponsive. Defamation is not free speech, especially the sort of hate speech we are describing. Until that is dealt with, there is no basis for civil discussion. Business as usual defamation as usual, pretence that such is free expression as usual are over. KF

Censorship continues.

I suggest you re-read 100 above to begin to understand that there is no right to say anything you please anywhere you please, especially if you belong to favoured groups. There is such a line as that of making damaging, false assertions that a prudent person would have known were without adequate grounds and were harmful and demeaning. No one has a right to cross that line. Similarly, violation of privacy is a serious matter — and I say that as someone whose family has been subjected to outing attempts connected to implied threats. Remember, there is evidence on the table that on gross ill-founded conspiracy narratives, people are being deemed “enemies of humanity,” and there are attempts to pretend this is mere free speech. Not on the bloody, awful history of that accusation. A sobering line has been crossed and enabling behaviour is not good enough. KF.

So, since you have appointed yourself the arbitrator of where the line is you grant yourself the right to censor people on UD.

Maybe you shouldn’t participate in online forums, you’re not very good at handling antagonism.

And if your family was threatened then why didn’t you use the laws of your country and prosecute the miscreants?

Did or did not Dr Liddle host first a blog thread that associated me invidiously with Nazism (for no good cause) and did or did she not subsequently try to justify same?

Did or did she not similarly host a blog thread that propagated a conspiracy narrative about design theory and theorists that ended up declaring us to be in effect right wing totalitarian theocratic [i.e., decoding = “nazi” (a misnomer based on a common misunderstanding of fascist ideology as right wing, and a common smear that Hitler was a Christian]) “enemies of humanity”?

Did or did she not refuse to address uncivility and defamation in same, pleading the false claim that such is free expression.

I am, repeat, not blocking her from making expressions of her opinions or hosting same.

I am simply saying that after weeks and months of trying to get her to set this right, I am not going to entertain her in the equivalent of my living room as though nothing has happened, with a track record like that. The implicit principle, that if I can get away with it it is okay, it is “freedom” is monstrous and destructive. It also pivots on confusing licence for liberty.

This, as a final wake up call after repeated pleas and correction have been ignored.

Your insistence on equating this to “censorship” — prior restraint on publication by official or institutional source capable of silencing opinion leading to suppression of freedom of thought and expression — is an outrageous exaggeration and stretching intended to further polarise and alienate as well as besmirch.

Let me provide you with a legal dictionary definition FYI; one that was always a simple Google search away and thus well within your responsibility to provide FAIR comment in light of due diligence as a reasonably intelligent and educated person:

Censorship

The suppression or proscription of speech or writing that is deemed obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial . . . . [West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008]

Notice, first of all censorship is an act of power from those with capacity to actually suppress information, it applies to those able to suppress communication in a community or institutional context, i.e. if one has no power to effectively suppress dissemination of a view, one cannot censor, no more than can one fly by flapping one’s arms. One may refuse to entertain or promote or enable promotion of a view, but one is not censoring it if one has not got the power to see to it that it is severely hampered from spreading when fairly expressed.

Secondly, obscenity not being relevant, censorship is about suppression on disagreement, not an action in defence of civility in the teeth of defamation. Defamation is not protected speech. And that holds whether or not someone actually believes the defamatory claims to be true. Once it is reasonably accessible that demeaning or credibly harmful claims are not well warranted, a reasonable person has a duty of care to fairness to deem them false and not to be spread. Otherwise s/he is a party to slander.

Third, if there is reasonable opportunity for fair comment [such as with the equivalent to a traditional letters to the editor system], and ideas are not blocked for merely being controversial, one is not censoring.

Defamation, repeat, is not protected speech. (Cf 100 above again.)

Finally, the now all too common talking point of irresponsibly accusing of censorship used against defence of civility in discussion — remember, I am acting in response to insistent defamatory incivility! — is itself an irresponsible and unwarranted false accusation. (How I wish that we could have an actual discussion on merits, instead of one in an atmosphere tainted by the sort of tactics I am objecting to. Thoise tactics on your side, Jerad, are so widespread and so across the board on issues that it is quite evident that there is a pattern of abuse of institutional power and influence to demean and marginalise those who beg to differ with the evolutionary materialist secular humanist cultural agenda.)

False and irresponsible accusations of nazism, treasonous conspiracies to impose totalitarianism and declarations that classes of targetted people are “enemies of humanity” have no proper part in a civil discussion of serious issues. Period. Mutual basic respect being a condition of civil discussion.

Let me put it this way, if you are irritated by silly insults, how would you respond to being falsely deemed an enemy of humanity and a member of a fraudulent conspiracy to subvert science in a context in which these were taken as a matter of course?

Those who make and those who enable irresponsible and damaging false accusations show themselves to be rude, bigoted, disrespectful and inciting of hate. Uncivil, in short.

And if left to itself such incivility will dominate discussion, undermining the fabric of civility that is a requisite of civilisation itself. Where, our civilisation is already in enough trouble, and civility is indeed being undermined on all hands. So much so that I am more and more inclined to the view that in publication on the web, a reversion to the old fashioned “letters to the editor” approach, where responses from the public under rights of reply and fair comment are subject to editing and legal vetting as regards potential defamation, before publication, is justified.

Would you consider that “censorship”?

If you do so, you would be wrong, utterly and ridiculously wrong. Especially when we are in an era where you can easily go elsewhere and express your opinions to those willing to listen.

(And BTW, in an earlier thread where I suggested that if Popular Science had done this reversion to the traditional letters to the editor approach, it would have been justified, I was attacked from your side. That is revealing.)

Such is the context in which I have acted at length after weeks and months, and will now further act as this thread no longer serves any useful purpose other than to be a vehicle of irresponsible, and outrageously false accusations based on a well known toxic pattern of talking points. Coming from your side.

Your side has had ample opportunity here, and continues to have opportunity elsewhere. That opportunity has been abused and this is now insistent.

I am doing in effect the equivalent of saying that one insisting on trollish behaviour is not welcome. That the trollish behaviour is in the main done elsewhere and is done by hosting and enabling, is immaterial to its defamatory substance.

This, in a context where I have heard nothing from you and your side in the circle around UD that seeks to at minimum protest an ACTUAL live case of censorship at Ball State University.

In short, your agenda here is clearly to accuse and demean by improperly extending a loaded and irresponsible accusation. Which is defamatory.

POLICY ANOUNCEMENT: If a thread I own deteriorates into polarisation based on the red herrings led away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere or similar tactics in the teeth of editorial warnings from me as owner, I will terminate the thread of discussion on a three strikes and out principle. GEM of TKI